Theological Detoxification

 BS"D

Insights from Parshas Shoftim, on Occasion of the 35th Yahrtzeit of the Steipler Gaon O.B.M. (23 Av)

29 Menachem Av, Yom Kippur Koton, 5780 (Aug. 19, '20) v.5

by Rabbi Noson Shmuel Leiter

1.  Parshas Shoftim includes, as do the recent parshiyos, various commandments pertaining to the foundational principle of negation and eradication of Avoda Zorah, commonly translated as "Idolatry" (Devarim 17:2-7).  It also enumerates a panoply of prohibited, occult practices (Dev. 18:9-13), practices that tend to lead one to stray after Avoda Zorah ("A.Z."), as the Rambam (Maimonides) explains, in his Mishneh Torah (Laws of Idolatry,  11:16, end), and in his philosophical work Moreh Nevuchim (e.g. see 3:37).  It's also important to see the Moreh 1:36, where the Rambam describes the severity of various forms of heresy, relative to Avoda Zorah. For instance, attributing physicality to G-d (His'gashmus, ikkar Three) is even more severe kefirah than the heresy of worshiping some being as a medium to G-d (ikkar Five). Hisgashmus-related concerns are  actually very common nowadays (see further).

2.  We've written about some practical contemporary applications of these imperatives, and posted a bit as well (e.g., https://firstamendmentactivist.blogspot.com/2020/08/bolstering-emunah.html).  Here we would like to address some specific issues raised by the Steipler Gaon O.B.M. (HoRav HaGaon Yaakov Yisroel Kanievsky ZT"L), regarding a form of occult (and/or fraudulent) healing he prohibited in very strong terms in "Karyono De'igressa" 3:6, namely a practice known as "psychic surgery."  (Readers are urged to study his historic responsa in full.)

Among several objections, he mentions the Gemara in A.Z. 27b (Babylonian Talmud tractate Avoda Zorah, folio 27b), which we address in our monograph Mishmeres HaKodesh (5768/ 2008CE). The issues he raises there similarly apply to an entire range of unnatural practices and ideas/ shitos that have unfortunately become lucrative and popular in a small "frum" anti-rational, "New-Age" subculture. [This subculture is often found within the fringe elements of those concerned about harmful side-effects of childhood vaccination. They cluster around financial interests whose profits are made by preying on desperate, trusting, and often mis-educated clients.]

3.  Recently, we posted regarding a bizarre book, "Alternative Medicine in Halacha" ( http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2020/07/neither-alternative-medical-or-halachic.html ). Firstly, it's not about Alternative Medicine. It's about Universal Life Force Energy theory and practice. And that fact was reflected in a preview version. 

The book openly promotes the theological foundation for the aforementioned heresy-/ idolatry-associated "New Age" ideas - and many of the New Age practices that, in turn, tend to "validate" their attendant ideological - rather, theological - baggage.

It's important to preface our comments by conveying a glimpse of what type of compilation this book is. For one example - of many - it goes to the incredible extreme of open advocacy for long-distance "energy healing." And it does so as follows:

a)  Firstly, the author claims that mentally "sending" what he calls "Ch-i" [which he and other new age proponents imagine to be a "universal Life Force energy"] to a recipient (e.g., a client with a credit card) thousands of miles away is actually effective (p.41 para. 3).  As "evidence," he cites the book "Vibrational Medicine" by Richard Gerber (note 51).

A review of Gerber's book, especially the Acknowledgements, confirms that Gerber is a self-described disciple of the New Age kefira worldview called "Theosophy," and a well-known New Age missionary. He admitted to being heavily influenced by deeply occultic Minnim (devout heretics), including Theosophist leaders, like Alice Bailey y.s., who herself openly embraced the satanic goal of "...the gradual dissolution - if in any way possible - of the Orthodox Jewish faith..." (Externalization of the Heirarchy, p. 544, 551). Other Theosophist mentors of Gerber listed there are Rudolf Steiner and Charles Leadbeater. Steiner branched out to establish a (now international) new-age cult, the Anthroposophical Society. The Society, which had ties to the Nazis, promotes the occult, Brain Gym, Eurythmy, and a variety of other bizarre practices, and vigorously rejects rationality, Science, and vaccination. Gerber lists additional new age luminaries, including those who channel spirits - along with their Spirits (who could be seen as demonic teleprompters) - like "Seth," courtesy of Jane Roberts. (Some of this information was actually published not long after AMIH was published, in the Hebrew sefer "Lo Kessem B'Yisroel," p.42.)

Thus, the author of AMIH is  blatantly misrepresenting Gerber, a Minn (heretic) and a Maisis (missionary), as if he is some sort of scientific authority. Furthermore, what type of  individual would rely on Gerber for anything? And why wasn't the author afraid of publicly revealing his reliance on such a heretical, occultic work?

b)  Furthermore,  the author even claims that the bizarre "energy healing" practice in question is "natural" - and permitted by Jewish Law (!) (p. 41 para. 3; p. 42 para. 1, 2; 2017 ed.).

c)  To provide a bit of Halachic perspective, various prominent Rabbis have prohibited ALL forms of energy healing; e.g., see the Rabbinical statement of Jewish Law reprinted at end of the sefer (Torah book) "Rav Belsky on Alternative Medicine, New Age Medicine - Energy Healing" (Judaica Press, 5777/ 2017CE), p. 127-30.

d)  Moreover, the Steipler Gaon ZT"L himself unequivocally prohibited a practice whose physical description matches the standard touch-form of energy healing ("Orchos Rabbeinu," written by a prominent disciple, Rav Avrohom Hurvitz O.B.M., vol. 1, p.290, #7).

e)  Inasmuch as the Steipler prohibited even the hands-on technique, how much more so is the long-distance "sending of healing energy" - which is even more overtly unnatural - strictly prohibited.  (Incidentally, the position of the Steipler Gaon against energy healing was reaffirmed in a Shvat 2016CE responsa from his son, Rav Chaim Shlit"a, published in "Lo Kessem B'Yisroel" (2017CE, p. 60,61).)

f) In another twist, the author (p. 37, note 38, '17 ed.) addresses a critique that we should not practice such questionable things in absence of a tradition indicating their propriety. He replies that we do in fact have such a tradition - from one of our Holy Imahos (whose name is omitted here, out of defference, so that she not bear yet more pain by mention in connection to this A.Z. associated propaganda, the likes of which she herself risked her life to eradicate). Apparently, the genuine tradition we know that we do have from the Steipler - directly through his disciple - doesn't compete with his bizarre interpretation of a Torah source regarding one act perfomed by one of the most saintly women in world history, an act which was obviously on a spiritual plane beyond any true resemblance to the heathen energy healing techniques being imported by frum new age devotees.

4.  a)  Theologically speaking, the central thrust of the book AMIH is  to convince us that a foundational Taoist principle, "Ch-i," can be safely imported into Judaism, R"L.

b) In fact, on p. 38, note 43, the author, amazingly, tries to legitimize even the New Age belief in Ch-i. In a footnote referring to his remarks regarding new age energy healing practitioners, he writes: "Although all practitioners of energy medicine (sic) believe in the existence of Ch-i {here the author clearly includes the new age energy healing practitioners as well - NL} ... such a belief corresponds perfectly with the Torah view of the world and should not be considered a heretical belief." As we will show further, the new age view of Ch-i is indeed heretical and/or idolatrous.

In fact, the author himself admits that some Ch-i believers consider the energy to be god (see sources cited below, including from Mishpacha Magazine in '08).  Accordingly, how can he write about the belief regarding Ch-i held by energy healing practitioners as a whole: "such a belief corresponds perfectly with the Torah view of the world..."?

c)  More fundamentally, the very fact that he's admittedly importing theological elements of foreign metaphysical systems into Judaism is itself anathema. 

d)  Therefore, nothing further actually need be said to debunk the author, the book, and it's contents. The very advocacy of foreign metaphysical/ religious doctrines should suffice to ensure no one take this author seriously about anything anymore. The centrality of this one simple point should not be overlooked.

e) Furthermore, the author, in his well edited, "Rabbi-reviewed"  preview version (circa 2015CE), described this Taoist notion of Ch-i as an extension of G-d (p.33) - Afar le'Piv. This ululative is even more sacrilegious than it is absurd.

He removed that incriminating evidence before going public with his book. Apparently, he feared that revealing his true colors on that foundational issue of Divinity would out him as comprehensively unqualified and illegitimate as an authority on all matters Jewish.

f)  However, how a mere editorial subterfuge allowed him to subsequently get a Judaism-pass is an important question.

5.  a)  Furthermore, on p. 46 (2017 edition), he waxes defensively for Buddhism, downplaying Avoda Zorah concerns - while actually describing Buddhism in positive terms (in a descriptive reminiscent of Chassidus, le'Havdil alfei havdolos).

b)  He then proceedes to whitewash Re-iki, a (long-distance) energy healing practice widely known as overtly idolatrous (e.g.  The Book of Ch-i, by Paul Wildish, p. 91 (©2000CE; ISBN 158290-0299).

Either of those two should similarly disqualify the author.

c)  The above raises another question. In Mishpacha Mag. 19 adar 2, 5768 [March 26, '08], pg. 31, he is quoted: "... however, if he believes that chi is God as some practitioners actually do, needless to say there is a problem"

Why doesn't he simply admit that it's outright Kefira (heresy), to believe that G-d is subject to location, to change, to being manipulated R"L, as the energy is? Is it because he himself believes that Ch-i is itself divine, perhaps with some rationalization?
Well, according to what he wrote in the preview version of his book (p. 33), describing the Ch-i as an extension of H..., , that seems to be the case.

6.  The author goes to lengths to convey the impression to the unsuspecting reader that he addresses the concerns of the Rabbis who warned against these foreign New Age ideas and practices, for well over a decade now. Some of these objections have been mentioned in the recently published "Rav Belsky on Alternative Medicine, New Age Medicine - Energy Healing" (Judaica Press, 5777; e.g. in the Psak on p. 127-130), as well as in other recent sefarim, and in numerous public Rabbinical statements issued over the last two decades.

7.  It's important for those unfamiliar with these arcane terms and ideas to realize that the claim in AMIH that Ch-i is a concept compatible with Judaism is baseless - as well as demonstrably and absolutely false. Moreover, in reality, Ch-i, as understood by many in the contemporary New Age milieu, constitutes both Heresy - Kefira (specifically, His'gashmus Ha'Borei, as below) - and Avoda Zorah ("A.Z."), as we will explain.

8.  What is the concept of Ch-i?

Please note that here we address the CONCEPT of Ch-i, unlike many writers, who tend to immediately launch into an attempt to identify whatever actual entity (force) to which the term Ch-i may or may not refer or correspond.

9.  "Ch-i" (a.k.a. "K-i" in Japan) is a Chinese term, one of many terms used to refer to an allegedly "universal" Life Force, imagined to animate (i.e., give existence to) the entire universe, a force which is also purportedly tapped into, channelled, and utilized in a broad range of new age techniques and systems, especially within Holistic Health. Holistic Systems which purportedly utilize Ch-i include Hands-On (sic) Healing, a.k.a. Energy Healing; Applied Kinesiology; Health Kinesiology, One Brain; original Yoga*; various forms of dowsing; E.F.T., and more.  (It's noteworthy that all of these systems include techniques that are allegedly effective even when performed long distance, clearly indicating how "natural" they are purported to be...)

{* Some western forms of Yoga have been partially sanitized, but remain with other, more subtle Halachic concerns.}

10.  The Kefira inherent in the aforementioned concept of Ch-i is evident: As the Rambam explains in the very first positive commandment, G-d is The One Who animates all being. To claim that one can, for example, manipulate or channel G-d Himself is High Heresy (in addition to being ludicrous). And if they deny that G-d is The One Who animates all - that itself is High Heresy. This simple observation should suffice, for now, to explain one Kefirah concern in a manner that the layman can easily grasp.

11.  Alternatively, some may find it easier to understand as follows: The idea of Ch-i is Kefira because new age believers imagine that whatever force they are ostensibly channeling or manipulating in their "energy work" is in fact the same Force that animates all of existence - which we know is G-d. Accordingly, they're attributing physical characteristics to G-d.

12.  How is the notion of Ch-i an Avoda Zorah concept as well?

SOME new age practitioners imagine that the Ch-i possesses and operates based on its own will. Some even ask it "energetic permission" to perform certain diagnostic techniques. Attributing to a force the ability to WILLINGLY help or harm Man is the classical idolatrous error of paganism - dating back to the pre-Abrahamic epoch of global endarkenment; see for example the Chazon Ish, Yoreh Daiyoh 62:19.  Even the author of AMIH was compelled to acknowledge the prohibition of "receiving treatment from any practitioner who believes that Ch-i has a will of its own." (p. 21:2)

13.  Burden Of Proof:

Consequently, in order to deny the concern that the very notion of "Ch-i" is a kefira or A.Z. term in the new-age worldview - and /or in far-Eastern religions - the author of AMIH would need to PROVE several assertions - which he does not - and cannot - do.

1) He would need to prove that Ch-i is not imagined to diagnose or heal etc. on it's own imagined "will." 

a)  However, inconveniently, the Taoist program "Health Kinesiology," developed by the author's own mentor - Jimmy Scott - clearly contradicts this, by explicitly attributing "will" to Ch-i,  (HK Manual p. 142; The HK System, 1998, Jimmy Scott, p.135, as referenced in "Rav Belsky on Alternative Medicine" et.al., p. 106.).*

*{The author entertainingly attempts (p. 75-77, '17 ed.) to circumvent that obtrusive reality by publishing an alleged phone conversation (presumably staged) in which Scott ostensibly orally contradicts (ostensibly "explaining") his own HK manual (in what appears as a second revelation, "Luchos Sh'niyos").}

14.  Again, we could really end our critique right here. That one fact demolishes the entire foundation the author tries to build to legitimize Ch-i (and to lambaste or publicly critique the Ch-i critics within the Orthodox Jewish community, including Rav Yisroel Belsky (in the '17 ed.: p.29, note 8;

p. 75 n49; 76; 77 n51). It also provides a metric of the temerity involved.  However, there is much, much more, far more than we could cover in anything less than a voluminous book or two. 

15.  In general, it's crucial to emphasize that the critiques here tend towards being minimal, omitting many other objections. Thus, absence of an objection here is by no means to be taken as an implication that it's not a legitimate critique.

16.  Explicit References to Ch-i as god: 

b)  Many do explicitly refer to this imagined universal healing energy, a.k.a. Ch-i, Prana, Bio-Energy et.al., as "god" (e.g. Dimensions in Wholistic Healing, Otto & Knight, Editors; Lawrence LeShan, quoting Frank Loehr; copy available).

c) The author (of AMIH) is himself compelled to begrudgingly acknowledge that indisputable fact, albeit partially. Here is a partial list of the author admitting that some Ch-i adherents consider it god:

1) In Mishpacha Magazine 19 adar 2, 5768 [March 26, '08], pg. 31:

"... however, if he believes that chi is God as some practitioners actually do, needless to say there is a problem"

2) AMIH ('17 ed.), p. 21-22, note 42;

3) p.28, Hebrew footnote 6;

4) p.39 par.2;

5) p.77 n.51, para. 2;

6) Also see description of Ch-i in the Hebrew Section (critique of MW), p. 316, (large middle paragraph).

»»»

17. Is Ch-i imagined to be a First Cause?

2)  Furthermore, to alleviate the heresy objection, the author of AMIH would also need to prove that Ch-i is only a Nivra (created entity) - a force distinct from the "Sibah Rishona" - First Cause/ Creator in their pantheon, let's say the "Tao" - not merely an extension thereof. He'd need to prove this because, as we mentioned above (and as we argue in our monograph Mishmeres HaKodesh), IF Ch-i is imagined to be a First Cause - then Ch-i is a heretical notion because it's also concurrently considered to possess physical qualities - hence, His'gashmus HaBorei (explicitly denying Ikkar Three; e.g., see Rambam Yesodei HaTorah 1:7,11). [This objection would hold true even if Ch-i would not be considered to have independent will to help or harm Man.]

18.  However, the author cannot make that claim with a straight face, for several reasons.

a)  ONE is that the author himself wrote in an early English version (circa '15, p. 33, top), misquoting holy Kisvei Kabboloh, claiming that this lofty "universal energy," Ch-i IS an "extension of the Creator" (!), Afar l'piv. Now, in his published version, he wants us to believe that Taoists are "frummer" than the Kisvei Kabbaloh he misquoted, in that they hold Ch-i to be a distinct, separate created being. The degree to which this nonsense reeks of the blasphemous cannot be described in words.

b) Furthermore, the author wants us to accept his claim that Ch-i is imagined to be strictly a created entity - created and/or animated by some other force, perhaps Tao - despite the undisputed fact that the whole New Age approach is based on the (imagined) unity of ALL; all objects are merely manifestations of one universal energy "chulent." (Bluntly put another way: if they don't distinguish between their lofty Ch-i and what the dog leaves behind, why should one assume without evidence that they would separate their lofty Ch-i from "Holy" Tao?)

c)  Additionally, in his "The Book Of Ch-i," influential New Age author Paul Wildish writes (p.4, col.1, quoting John Blofield) that Tao isn't imagined to be "a Supreme Being - but a Supreme State of Being." This typical new-age doubletalk implies that new agers don't necessarily look at Tao as a distinct entity that creates or animates some other distinct being, such that one could assume that the latter entity - Ch-i in our case - is only considered a nivra.

19.  Furthermore, to satisfy his burden of proof, the author of AMIH would need to PROVE all of the above as a certainty, otherwise it would be a safek shaim A.Z./Kefira (a possible/suspect AZ/heretical term). 

20.  To provide some general Halachic context here, the Maharam Shick notes (in his responsa on Orach Chaim 304) that even a possibility of being drawn after Avoda Zorah (or Heresy - NL) is sufficient to require us to sacrifice our lives, even when the physical danger is definite and imminent. A practical example of this is in A.Z. 27b, cited in Y.D. (as "settled Law"), siman 155:1, addressed further.

21.  And even THEN: Ch-i would remain, even according to the author's claim, a foundational principle of multiple eastern and new age foreign metaphysical/ religious systems; see for example his own description of Ch-i in the Hebrew Section (critique of MW), p. 316, (large middle paragraph). . Thus, the very acceptance of these ideas would itself constitute  "Hamshocha" - heretical/ idolatrous influence, which is itself prohibited (see Rambam Hil. A.Z. 2:2-3; Sefer HaChinuch 387; Bi'ur Halacha 1:1, Sixth Constant Mitzva).

22.  Moreover, even mere discussion thereof or exposure (except for purposes such as warning others away from it) would be forbidden (Rambam, et. al., ibid.).

23.  Furthermore, attributing the effectiveness (real or imagined) of mystical practices to that notion of Ch-i - as the book AMIH does unrelentingly - would prohibit the practice itself, as per the Gemara in A.Z. 27b, explained below.

24.  Also realize that even if, just for the sake of argument, hypothetically, the aforementioned author would have been ABLE to PROVE these positions - in actuality, he clearly failed to so. 

25.  In fact, on page 39, he quotes the aforementioned new age missionary (Min Aduk), and open Theosophist, Richard Gerber, in a feeble attempt to prove that Ch-i isn't generally considered God. However, this single solitary quote fails to actually prove that Ch-i is considered to be a mere nivra, as opposed to god itself. In addition, even if it would appear to indicate that Gerber takes that position, it would be contradicted by other elements of Gerber's unified new age worldview. (True to form, the author does succeed in conveying to the average, casual or unsuspecting reader that that's what Gerber believes.) After his Taoist-Whitewash-in-Progress of 20 years, the author should have been able to at least pretend he's doing a better "hishtadlus" than that. His failure to do so itself speaks volumes. In addition, the deceptiveness of his attempt speaks perhaps even more eloquently.

[26.  Parenthetically, perhaps one could argue that the very attribution of a practice to Ch-i - even if Ch-i would not be A.Z. or heretical per se - would imply that the operative force emanates from Tao, inasmuch as that's what Ch-i is imagined to be within it's  ideological context - i.e., the revealed manifestation of Tao.]

°°°

27.  "Ain Misrapin min HaMinnim: The Prohibition of "A.Z. By Attribution." 

One practical application of the fact that Ch-i et.al. are idolatrous and heretical terms - "shaimos-A.Z." is the issur (prohibition) of Avoda-Zorah-by-Attribution. This issur, known as "Ain misrap'in min ha'Minnim," is based on the Gemara Avoda-Zorah 27b, and, according to Tosofos, the Gemara in Pesachim 25a as well (regarding the prohibition of being healed with an herbal Asheira remedy).
This is cited le'halachah in Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Daiyoh 155:1.

{28.  Chazal (Our Sages) possessed an incisive understanding of the natural world, rooted in a deep comprehension of the Heavenly realms, from which all physical entities and phenomenon manifest. They possessed the expertise enabling them to identify various "segulos" (paranormal techniques) as legitimate forms of treatment, including many segulos that fell into the category of "lachash" (loosely translated as "incantation").}

29.  A lachash is permitted if necessary to save a life, even if employed by an idolater. However, IF the lachash is combined with any Shaim A.Z. (name of an idolatrous entity), one is obligated to sacrifice one's life to avoid benefit from such a lachash.  Secondly, if a lachash is uttered by a "Min" (apostate, or a devotee to idolatry), then it is presumed to be attributed to idolatry, thus prohibited likewise.

30.  This prohibition is predicated on the concern of Hamshochoh - i.e. that if somehow the remedy will APPEAR to work, without being easily attributable to a known legitimate mechanism - then it's attribution to A.Z. - even by a gentile practitioner - may prompt gullible people to FALSELY attribute legitimacy/power to that A.Z. notion to which it was attributed. That erroneous belief - attributing power to idolatrous or heretical notions - is heresy. (See aforementioned Maharam Shick, O.C. 304.)

31.  The AMIH rendition of that Gemara, unsurprisingly, doesn't convey a proper understanding thereof. It's crucial to understand the following: By attribution of the effectiveness of a mystical technique to A.Z., one could prompt someone to be duped into believing that attribution - simply due to the absence of a cogent explanation for that effectiveness, even if the practitioner is an otherwise devout Jew. Thus, the prohibition is by no means waived just because the practitioner has very long paiyos, appears (or is) ultra-frum, gives a shiur in Kabboloh, publishes sefarim, or even performs it for free.  (This aspect of the Halacha doesn't fit the frum new age industry narrative.)

32.  For the author of AMIH to publish such nonsense as the aforementioned advocacy for foreign metaphysical/ religious doctrines, and corollary practices  is absolutely inexcusable.  How much more so to do so in the name of Halacha and Kabboloh.  

33.  This holds true even if nothing more was involved other than irresponsible adjudication of Halacha (see Rambam, M.T., Hil. Talmud Torah 5:4).  How much more so in this case, which is in essence active advocacy for a New Age missionary agenda - promoting ideas which we are obligated to sacrifice our very lives to avoid (see Yoreh Daiyoh 157:1).

34.  Moreover, the Rambam writes (M.T., Hil. Tefillah 2:1) that the prayer for G-d to neutralize the Epikorsim was added to the Amidah because it was the greatest need of Mankind. In stark contrast, books like AMIH actively advance their very proliferation - and their agenda.

May we merit to expedite the Final Redemption by eliminating the causes of its tragic extension.

°°°

For questions/ Shailos please contact: 

Tomim Tih'yeh:

US: 845.642.1679

Israel: 03.721.3337

______
To check for future articles on related matters, see the Tomim Tih'yeh link:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w3JvM-6srFWCAspYhfaccBbEoF6P6ru5yC1wCdx_VIE/edit?usp=sharing